search
Back to results

Patient Perception of Treatment Burden in Weekly Versus Daily Growth Hormone Injections in Children With GHD

Primary Purpose

Growth Hormone Deficiency

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
International
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Genotropin
somatrogon
Sponsored by
Pfizer
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional other trial for Growth Hormone Deficiency

Eligibility Criteria

3 Years - 17 Years (Child)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Children aged 3 years old and <18 years with either isolated GHD, or GH insufficiency.
  2. Currently on treatment with either Genotropin Pen®, Genotropin GoQuick Pen®, HumatroPen® (United States of America [USA] only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only) ≥3 months and have been compliant on a stable dose (±10%) for at least 3 months prior to screening.
  3. IGF I SDS < 2.
  4. Subjects on hormonal replacement therapy for other hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) hormonal deficiencies and/or diabetes insipidus must be on an optimized and stable treatment regimen, as determined by the Investigator, for at least 3 months prior to screening.

Exclusion Criteria

  1. History of leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma or any other cancer.
  2. History of radiation therapy or chemotherapy.
  3. Children with psychosocial dwarfism.
  4. Children born small for gestational age (SGA) - birth weight and/or birth length < 2 SDS for gestational age.
  5. Other causes of short stature such as uncontrolled primary hypothyroidism and rickets.
  6. Chromosomal abnormalities including Turner's syndrome, Laron syndrome, Noonan syndrome, Prader Willi syndrome, Russell Silver syndrome, short stature homeobox (SHOX) mutations/deletions or skeletal dysplasias.
  7. Treatment with regularly scheduled daily or weekly injectable medications other than Genotropin® Pen, Genotropin GoQuick®, HumatroPen® (USA only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only).
  8. Diabetes Mellitus.
  9. Current treatment with Genotropin MiniQuick.
  10. History of any exposure to a long acting hGH preparation.
  11. Known or suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive patient, or patient with advanced diseases such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or tuberculosis.
  12. Drug, substance, or alcohol abuse.
  13. Known hypersensitivity to the components of the medication.
  14. Pregnant female subjects; breastfeeding female subjects; fertile male subjects and female subjects of childbearing potential who are unwilling or unable to use a highly effective method of contraception as outlined in this protocol for the duration of the study and for at least 28 days after the last dose of investigational product.
  15. Other acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation or behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk associated with study participation or investigational product administration or may interfere with the interpretation of study results and, in the judgment of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this study.
  16. Investigator site staff members directly involved in the conduct of the study and their family members, site staff members otherwise supervised by the investigator, or subjects who are Pfizer employees, including their family members, directly involved in the conduct of the study.
  17. Participation in other studies involving investigational drug(s) within 30 days prior to study entry and/or during study participation.
  18. Patient and/or the parent/legal guardian are likely to be non-compliant with respect to study conduct.
  19. Subject and/or the parent/legal guardian are unable to understand written and/or verbal instructions on the proper use of growth hormone injection devices.
  20. Children with closed epiphyses (this determination can be based on available existing clinical data).

Sites / Locations

  • Center of Excellence in Diabetes and Endocrinology
  • Children's Hospital Colorado
  • Rocky Mountain Pediatric Endocrinology
  • Pediatric Endocrine Associates, PC
  • Nemours Children's Health System
  • Nemours Children's Specialty Care
  • Nemours Biomedical Research
  • Nemours Children's Hospital
  • Nemours Children's Clinic
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children
  • Emory Children's Center
  • IU Health Pharmacy
  • Riley Hospital for Children
  • Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics
  • Hackensack University Medical Center
  • Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC
  • MultiCare Health System - Mary Bridge Children's Health Center
  • MultiCare Institute for Research & Innovation
  • First Pediatric Clinic UMHAT "St. Marina" EAD
  • Fakultni nemocnice Brno, Pediatricka Klinika
  • Nemocnicni lekarna FN Brno
  • Fakultni nemocnice v Motole, Pediatricka klinika 2.LF UK a FN Motol
  • Nemocnicni lekarna FN Motol
  • Nemocnicna Lekaren Nudch
  • Národný ústav detských chorôb, Detská klinika
  • Detská fakultná nemocnica Košice Klinika detí a dorastu LF UPJŠ a DFN
  • Nemocnica lekaren DFN Kosice, Klinika deti a dorastu
  • St. Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • St. Georges University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • The Institute of Child Health, University College London
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital
  • NIHR Clinical Research Facility, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Other

Other

Arm Label

Daily to Weekly

Weekly to Daily

Arm Description

Genotropin to somatrogon

somatrogon to Genotropin

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Secondary Outcome Measures

Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "If you were given the choice between the daily growth hormone injection pen and the weekly growth hormone injection pen, which pen would you choose?" Response was: 1) the daily injection pen (Genotropin) or 2) the weekly injection pen (Somatrogon).
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule do you prefer overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) prefer the weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) prefer the daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no preference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was more convenient overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) weekly injection schedule was more convenient (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule was more convenient (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was easier to follow overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) easier to follow weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) easier to follow daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which pen was easier to use?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool. Question had 4 parts: preparing the injection pen (Part I), setting the dose (Part II), injecting the medicine (Part III) and storing the pen (Part IV). Participants/caregiver expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly pen easier to use (Somatrogon); 2) daily pen easier to use (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant life interference. Participants were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). The participants expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Caregivers of participants were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference. The caregivers responded for the participants, and in actual they respond to the number of participants only but per caregiver responses.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/ caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to family life interference and assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "How beneficial was to take injections less often?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool pertaining to benefit relating to the Injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= extremely beneficial, 2= very beneficial, 3= moderately beneficial, 4= slightly beneficial and 5= not at all beneficial. Lower score of benefit relating to injection schedule meant a better outcome.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants/caregiver dyads were asked 4 questions "Which schedule would be better able to follow?" (Question 1), "Which schedule would be more likely to follow for a longer time?" (Question 2), "Which schedule would be better able to follow for a longer time?" (Question 3) and "Which schedule would be more likely to follow?" (Question 4) from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant intention to comply with treatment. Options for each question were: 1) weekly injection (Somatrogon) 2) daily injection (Genotropin), or 3) no difference.
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).

Full Information

First Posted
December 21, 2018
Last Updated
October 12, 2021
Sponsor
Pfizer
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03831880
Brief Title
Patient Perception of Treatment Burden in Weekly Versus Daily Growth Hormone Injections in Children With GHD
Official Title
A PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, MULTICENTER, OPEN-LABEL, CROSSOVER STUDY ASSESSING SUBJECT PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT BURDEN WITH USE OF WEEKLY GROWTH HORMONE (SOMATROGON) VERSUS DAILY GROWTH HORMONE (GENOTROPIN (REGISTERED)) INJECTIONS IN CHILDREN WITH GROWTH HORMONE DEFICIENCY
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
October 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
February 7, 2019 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
August 28, 2020 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
August 28, 2020 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Pfizer

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This is an open label randomized 24 week crossover trial assessing the treatment burden of a weekly growth hormone injection regimen (somatrogon) compared to a daily growth hormone injection regimen (Genotropin). Approximately 90 children with growth hormone deficiency who have been stable on treatment with daily Genotropin will be enrolled.
Detailed Description
Subjects will be randomized to one of two sequences, either 12 weeks of continued treatment with daily Genotropin followed by 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon, or 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon followed by 12 weeks of treatment with daily Genotropin. Subjects will have study visits at Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. Subjects will also be followed up by phone 8 to 12 days after each treatment period begins (Week 1 and Week 13). Subjects and caregivers (as a Dyad) will complete questionnaires assessing treatment burden at baseline and at the end of each 12 week treatment period. All subjects/caregivers will receive a follow up phone call at Week 28.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Growth Hormone Deficiency

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Other
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
87 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Daily to Weekly
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
Genotropin to somatrogon
Arm Title
Weekly to Daily
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
somatrogon to Genotropin
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Genotropin
Intervention Description
Genotropin (dose [mg] at time of enrollment) given subcutaneously once daily
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
somatrogon
Intervention Description
0.66 mg/kg/week given subcutaneously once weekly
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline
Title
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time Frame
Week 12
Title
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference [5 questions]: a measure of life interference [daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel]; life interference-changes to life routine [1 question]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone [GH] injections [1 question]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "If you were given the choice between the daily growth hormone injection pen and the weekly growth hormone injection pen, which pen would you choose?" Response was: 1) the daily injection pen (Genotropin) or 2) the weekly injection pen (Somatrogon).
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule do you prefer overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) prefer the weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) prefer the daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no preference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was more convenient overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) weekly injection schedule was more convenient (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule was more convenient (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was easier to follow overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) easier to follow weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) easier to follow daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which pen was easier to use?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool. Question had 4 parts: preparing the injection pen (Part I), setting the dose (Part II), injecting the medicine (Part III) and storing the pen (Part IV). Participants/caregiver expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly pen easier to use (Somatrogon); 2) daily pen easier to use (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant life interference. Participants were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). The participants expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Caregivers of participants were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference. The caregivers responded for the participants, and in actual they respond to the number of participants only but per caregiver responses.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/ caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to family life interference and assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "How beneficial was to take injections less often?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool pertaining to benefit relating to the Injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= extremely beneficial, 2= very beneficial, 3= moderately beneficial, 4= slightly beneficial and 5= not at all beneficial. Lower score of benefit relating to injection schedule meant a better outcome.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Description
Participants/caregiver dyads were asked 4 questions "Which schedule would be better able to follow?" (Question 1), "Which schedule would be more likely to follow for a longer time?" (Question 2), "Which schedule would be better able to follow for a longer time?" (Question 3) and "Which schedule would be more likely to follow?" (Question 4) from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant intention to comply with treatment. Options for each question were: 1) weekly injection (Somatrogon) 2) daily injection (Genotropin), or 3) no difference.
Time Frame
Week 24
Title
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24
Description
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study
Description
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 24
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEs
Description
An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that: resulted in death, was life threatening (immediate risk of death), required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions), resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as events that occurred between first dose of study drug up to 35 days after last dose of study drug. Related TEAEs were those AEs who had relation to the study treatment and was judged by investigator.
Time Frame
Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)
Title
Number of Participants With Adverse Events According to Severity
Description
AEs were assessed and categorized according to the severity as mild (did not interfered with participant's usual function), moderate (interfered to some extent with participant's usual function) and severe (interfered significantly with participant's usual function).
Time Frame
Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)
Title
Number of Participants With Discontinuation Due to Adverse Events (AEs)
Description
An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. The discontinuations due to adverse events was defined for participants and reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)
Title
Number of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities
Description
The laboratory abnormality parameters included Hematology: erythrocyte (Er.) mean corpuscular volume, Er. mean corpuscular hemoglobin:<0.9*lower limit normal (LLN), leukocytes:<0.6*LLN, lymphocytes:<0.8*LLN, neutrophils:<0.8*LLN, greater than (>) 1.2*upper limit normal (ULN), eosinophils, monocytes:>1.2*ULN. Clinical chemistry: bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin:>1.5*ULN, gamma glutamyl transferase:>3.0*ULN, albumin:>1.2*ULN, blood urea nitrogen:>1.3*ULN, urate:>1.2*ULN, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol:<0.8*LLN, potassium, magnesium:>1.1*ULN, phosphate:>1.2*ULN, bicarbonate:<0.9*LLN, creatine kinase:>2.0*ULN. Urinalysis: specific gravity:>1.030, ketones, urine protein, urine hemoglobin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase:>=1.
Time Frame
Week 1 to Week 12, Week 13 to Week 24
Title
Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)
Description
Blood samples were collected for determination of rhGH and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Title
Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)
Description
Blood samples were collected for determination of anti-somatrogon antibodies and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
3 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
17 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Children aged 3 years old and <18 years with either isolated GHD, or GH insufficiency. Currently on treatment with either Genotropin Pen®, Genotropin GoQuick Pen®, HumatroPen® (United States of America [USA] only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only) ≥3 months and have been compliant on a stable dose (±10%) for at least 3 months prior to screening. IGF I SDS < 2. Subjects on hormonal replacement therapy for other hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) hormonal deficiencies and/or diabetes insipidus must be on an optimized and stable treatment regimen, as determined by the Investigator, for at least 3 months prior to screening. Exclusion Criteria History of leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma or any other cancer. History of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. Children with psychosocial dwarfism. Children born small for gestational age (SGA) - birth weight and/or birth length < 2 SDS for gestational age. Other causes of short stature such as uncontrolled primary hypothyroidism and rickets. Chromosomal abnormalities including Turner's syndrome, Laron syndrome, Noonan syndrome, Prader Willi syndrome, Russell Silver syndrome, short stature homeobox (SHOX) mutations/deletions or skeletal dysplasias. Treatment with regularly scheduled daily or weekly injectable medications other than Genotropin® Pen, Genotropin GoQuick®, HumatroPen® (USA only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only). Diabetes Mellitus. Current treatment with Genotropin MiniQuick. History of any exposure to a long acting hGH preparation. Known or suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive patient, or patient with advanced diseases such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or tuberculosis. Drug, substance, or alcohol abuse. Known hypersensitivity to the components of the medication. Pregnant female subjects; breastfeeding female subjects; fertile male subjects and female subjects of childbearing potential who are unwilling or unable to use a highly effective method of contraception as outlined in this protocol for the duration of the study and for at least 28 days after the last dose of investigational product. Other acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation or behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk associated with study participation or investigational product administration or may interfere with the interpretation of study results and, in the judgment of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this study. Investigator site staff members directly involved in the conduct of the study and their family members, site staff members otherwise supervised by the investigator, or subjects who are Pfizer employees, including their family members, directly involved in the conduct of the study. Participation in other studies involving investigational drug(s) within 30 days prior to study entry and/or during study participation. Patient and/or the parent/legal guardian are likely to be non-compliant with respect to study conduct. Subject and/or the parent/legal guardian are unable to understand written and/or verbal instructions on the proper use of growth hormone injection devices. Children with closed epiphyses (this determination can be based on available existing clinical data).
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Organizational Affiliation
Pfizer
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Center of Excellence in Diabetes and Endocrinology
City
Sacramento
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
95821
Country
United States
Facility Name
Children's Hospital Colorado
City
Aurora
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80045
Country
United States
Facility Name
Rocky Mountain Pediatric Endocrinology
City
Centennial
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80112
Country
United States
Facility Name
Pediatric Endocrine Associates, PC
City
Greenwood Village
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80111
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nemours Children's Health System
City
Jacksonville
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32207
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nemours Children's Specialty Care
City
Jacksonville
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32207
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nemours Biomedical Research
City
Orlando
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32827
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nemours Children's Hospital
City
Orlando
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32827
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nemours Children's Clinic
City
Pensacola
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32514
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shriners Hospitals for Children
City
Tampa
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
33612
Country
United States
Facility Name
Emory Children's Center
City
Atlanta
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30322
Country
United States
Facility Name
IU Health Pharmacy
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46202
Country
United States
Facility Name
Riley Hospital for Children
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46202
Country
United States
Facility Name
Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics
City
Kansas City
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
64111
Country
United States
Facility Name
Hackensack University Medical Center
City
Hackensack
State/Province
New Jersey
ZIP/Postal Code
07601
Country
United States
Facility Name
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC
City
Pittsburgh
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
15224
Country
United States
Facility Name
MultiCare Health System - Mary Bridge Children's Health Center
City
Tacoma
State/Province
Washington
ZIP/Postal Code
98405
Country
United States
Facility Name
MultiCare Institute for Research & Innovation
City
Tacoma
State/Province
Washington
ZIP/Postal Code
98405
Country
United States
Facility Name
First Pediatric Clinic UMHAT "St. Marina" EAD
City
Varna
ZIP/Postal Code
9010
Country
Bulgaria
Facility Name
Fakultni nemocnice Brno, Pediatricka Klinika
City
Brno
ZIP/Postal Code
61300
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Nemocnicni lekarna FN Brno
City
Brno
ZIP/Postal Code
61300
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Fakultni nemocnice v Motole, Pediatricka klinika 2.LF UK a FN Motol
City
Praha 5
ZIP/Postal Code
150 06
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Nemocnicni lekarna FN Motol
City
Praha 5
ZIP/Postal Code
150 06
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Nemocnicna Lekaren Nudch
City
Bratislava
ZIP/Postal Code
833 40
Country
Slovakia
Facility Name
Národný ústav detských chorôb, Detská klinika
City
Bratislava
ZIP/Postal Code
833 40
Country
Slovakia
Facility Name
Detská fakultná nemocnica Košice Klinika detí a dorastu LF UPJŠ a DFN
City
Kosice
ZIP/Postal Code
040 11
Country
Slovakia
Facility Name
Nemocnica lekaren DFN Kosice, Klinika deti a dorastu
City
Kosice
ZIP/Postal Code
040 11
Country
Slovakia
Facility Name
St. Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
SW17 0QT
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
St. Georges University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
SW17 0RE
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
The Institute of Child Health, University College London
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
WC1N 1EH
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Great Ormond Street Hospital
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
WC1N 3JH
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
NIHR Clinical Research Facility, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
WC1N 3JH
Country
United Kingdom

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests.
IPD Sharing URL
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests
Links:
URL
https://pmiform.com/clinical-trial-info-request?StudyID=C0311002
Description
To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.

Learn more about this trial

Patient Perception of Treatment Burden in Weekly Versus Daily Growth Hormone Injections in Children With GHD

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs